Copyright line

garryknight · 31 Dec 2022

Just a remember to change any copyright line you might have stored in your camera, or wherever you use it, if it's still set to 2022.

Bristolian · 1 Jan 2023

I messaged my togging buddies this morning to remind them of this.

Also, if your editing software is set to add copyright information during import/editing then that needs to be changed too.

ancient_mariner · 1 Jan 2023

Why would you need a date in your copyright?

Harlequin565 · 1 Jan 2023

I believe putting the date (year) in the copyright establishes time and was/is good practise should the need to prove when the copyright was established - especially if two people are claiming copyright for the same thing.

I imagine it also shows clients that your work is current and that you "are on top of things" - whatever you consider that benefit might be.

I don't believe there is a requirement to "add" copyright information as it is automatically granted when you take the photo, but making it visible and up to date might be a decision you want to take.

I generally update mine every year when I do annual housekeeping in Lightroom and create the next year's folder structure. A 5 minute job with no obvious downside (to my mind)

[/iamnotalawyer]

Box Brownie · 1 Jan 2023

ancient_mariner said:
Why would you need a date in your copyright?

I too wondered about the 'year' being in the copyright field.

I have always had my full name in that field. None too sure if you also have the copyright symbol (I have never looked

)

Musicman · 1 Jan 2023

ancient_mariner said:
Why would you need a date in your copyright?

It was a legal requirement to display a year date alongside the copyright mark for most works published in the United States from 1909 until the US implementation of the Berne Convention in 1988; otherwise your copyright mark was invalid

17 U.S. Code § 401 - Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies

www.law.cornell.edu

(a)General Provisions.—

Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

(b) Form of Notice.—If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations, or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3)
the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

[emphasis added]

P.S. the significance of the Berne Convention is that Berne recognises the existence of copyright from the moment of creation by the author, not just from when the work is published

As alluded to in the notes in the 17 USC 401 citation, I believe it’s still recommended and is required if you Register copyright in the US to take advantage of the extended legal and financial remedies for infringements of registered copyright, and not a bad habit to be in should your rights ever be infringed in the US

Phil V · 1 Jan 2023

If it makes you happy to have the date in your copyright line; do what you please. Fill yer boots.

For the rest of us, it’s absolutely bonkers, based on a myth or a complete misunderstanding of copyright.

Dave Canon · 1 Jan 2023

I just checked the EXIF data of a recent shot and I see it has "Created by: my name" Elsewhere it has copyright status: copyrighted and the capture date is also included in the EXIF. A further field is "copyright email" which included my email address. If a publisher came across my image and wished to use it, it easy to contact me. I am not aware that any of my images have been used with out my permission but I do not put them in lots of public areas such as FB, Flickr, Instagram etc.

Dave

garryknight · 1 Jan 2023

I don't bother putting it in my camera, but I include it when I share a post anywhere other than Flickr or a photography forum. The vast majority of my photos are Creative Commons licensed so I add it to the ones that aren't as a reminder to anyone that might steal it. Not that that would make much difference.

sk66 · 1 Jan 2023

Musicman said:
It was a legal requirement to display a year date alongside the copyright mark for most works published in the United States

That's about the only part that's correct... and you cannot register after the fact and get the extended remedies (there's a three month window).

The only thing a copyright notice (or other identifying watermark) does is that it counts as copyright management information, and the removal of which is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998... the DMCA provides additional protections and remedies in the US (and applies to most foreign works as well). It also makes any infringement "willful" and potentially increases some remedies (i.e. US statutory fine limit increases to 150k, up from 30k for an "innocent" infringement).

Edit- under UK law a watermark/notice may constitute as assertion of your right to be identified as the author, and the removal of such identification may be a violation of your moral rights.

Musicman · 1 Jan 2023

sk66 said:
That's about the only part that's correct... and you cannot register after the fact and get the extended remedies (there's a three month window).

I made no claim about registration after the fact, I think you may have mistaken my meaning. Let me put it more clearly.

I believe [including a copyright notice] is still recommended … and [including a copyright notice] not a bad habit to be in should your rights ever be infringed in the US

The US Copyright Office makes the following notes about the benefits of including a copyright notice

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Using a copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, non-U.S. works, and works published on or after March 1, 1989. However, notice conveys the following benefits:
• It puts potential users on notice that copyright is claimed in the work.
• For published works, notice may prevent a defendant from attempting to limit liability for damages or injunctive relief based on an “innocent infringement” defense.
• It identifies the copyright owner at the time of first publication for parties seeking permission to use the work.
• It identifies the year of first publication, which can be used to determine the term of copyright for anonymous or pseudonymous works or works made for hire.
• It may prevent the work from becoming an “orphan” by identifying the copyright owner or specifying the term of copyright. Orphan works are original works of authorship for which prospective users cannot identify or locate copyright owners to request permission.
Notice was required for works published in the United States before March 1, 1989.

That looks fairly like a recommendation to me.

That was an aside, though. My principal point, answering AM’s question, is that until quite recently (and, sorry, for me 1989 still feels relatively recent) it was mandatory. People are used to seeing (c) YYYY <name> everywhere and continue to apply it. CNN, Fox News, The New York Times and NPR (who ought to know) do exactly this in their web site footers today.

If you have a mixed archive, it’s certainly easier to apply just one rule (i.e. include a copyright notice) to everything whether published pre or post 1989.

For better or worse, US practice gets exported to the rest of the world via cultural osmosis.

Duly noted that it’s not required for registered works in the US, thanks

Phil V · 1 Jan 2023

Musicman said:
For better or worse, US practice gets exported to the rest of the world via cultural osmosis.

Particularly re copyright, not only is 'cultural osmosis' legally questionable, on this issue it's borderline dangerous for the rest of the developed world.

Since 1989 the Berne convention means most of the first world have a very simple rule re copyright - it exists in all work and belongs to the creator unless otherwise legally assigned.

The stupid f*cking US govt then decided that rather than just simply adopt the Berne convention; they'd also create a copyright registration service in order to 'give' copyright owners greater legal leverage to claim damages for breach of copyright.

The result is that rather than attaching the year to your (totally unnecessary) copyright notice, if you actually want to protect your work properly from misuse in the US, you actually have to register the work there.

So let's keep this factually correct - 1989 was 33 years ago, so that's completely irrelevant for work produced today. And if you want to genuinely be overcautious with copyright protection in the US - you'll need to create an account with the US copyright office and periodically bulk register your work. Or just not bother as the most likely places your work will be stolen are countries that aren't signatories to the Berne convention and you literally have no legal rights there.